On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:00:22 AM UTC-4, Mike Bayer wrote:
>
> does your test case show that? I guess I can run it.
>
Thanks. I think I finally got it. (!)
The confusion stemmed from how the `join()` required the start point on the
first bit of the "secondary" but not on the latter
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:16:56 PM UTC-4, Mike Bayer wrote:
>
> i think the problem is that if you aren't nesting the JOIN and instead
> doing an implicit join, then things like joined eager loading don't work
> out as well. There's no subqueries in your primaryjoin I doubt there's
> a
On 04/04/2016 07:35 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
I've been battling with a particular relationship and eventually managed
to get it working based off the docs when I realized I had a similar way
to short-circuit the chain, however I'm not happy with the result.
I've been battling with a particular relationship and eventually managed to
get it working based off the docs when I realized I had a similar way to
short-circuit the chain, however I'm not happy with the result.
(https://gist.github.com/jvanasco/6a98b339771bdee38e5d77b0da6ffd98)
My
